Legal Opinion

Kyle v. Wiley

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 16, 1951No. 1006PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOOD, Judge.

This appeal is from an order dismissing an amended complaint and our first question is whether the appeal was timely taken. The question arises from the following circumstances. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint, having been previously denied, was reheard and taken under advisement by the trial court. On October 6 the motion was granted and entry to that effect made in the docket. On October 7 notice of the court’s action was mailed to the parties. October 8 was a Sunday and appellant’s counsel probably received notice on October 9. Notice of appeal was filed on October 18.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dowd v. United States Ex Rel. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  2. Hill v. HawesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Boykin v. HuffCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  4. Truth Seeker Co. v. DurningCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  5. Conrad v. MedinaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hansford P. Miller v. Jackson AviromCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
  2. Barry v. RobsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  3. Poyner v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Da Costa v. HardyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1955
  5. Kyle v. WileyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API